Gehrke v. Jod
| Citation | 59 Mo. 522 |
| Parties | GEORGE GEHRKE, Respondent, v. MICHAEL JOD, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 31 March 1875 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.
Thomas Childress, for Appellant.
H. A. Clover with F. & L. Gottschalk, for Respondent.
This case comes before us for review from a ruling of the court below, refusing to set aside a judgment rendered against the defendant for want of an answer. It appears that the summons was served on the defendant in May, but not in time to bring defeudant in for the June term, and therefore the cause was triable at the October term. At that term there was no appearance for the defendant, and no answer filed, and a final judgment was rendered, which the defendant moved to set aside in eight days after its rendition. The motion is accompanied with an affidavit in which he states that when the process was served on him he employed one Poepping, an attorney at law, to attend to the case for him, and put him in possession of the facts relied on for a defence; that Poepping told him that the case could not be tried till the October term, and that it would be necessary to have a new writ served on him; that no further service was made, and that he knew nothing more about it till he saw in the papers that the October term was in session. He then went to Poepping to see about the matter and was assured by him that he was attending to it, and he alleges that Poepping did nothing but permitted judgment to go by default, and that as soon as he was advised of the judgment he appeared and moved to set it aside.
It has been frequently decided in this court that the omission of the attorney spoken to in the cause to plead, or make the proper defence, cannot place the application to set aside the judgment by default upon more favorable grounds, than if the omission had been on the part of the defendant himself. The attorney is the agent of the party employing him, and in the court stands in his stead, and any act of the attorney must necessarily be considered as the act of the client. (Field vs. Matson, 8 Mo., 686; Kirby vs. Chadwell, 10 Mo., 392; Austin vs. Nelson, 11 Mo., 192; Ridgley vs. Steamer Reindeer, 27 Mo., 442.) A different principle would lead to endless confusion and difficulty in the administration of justice.
In the present case, the damages had been assessed, and the judgment made final, and under such circumstances it would require strong proof of fraud or gross abuse of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oglesby v. Missouri Pacific Railway Company
... ... position legally as though the plaintiff himself had declared ... what the counsel said. It is, furthermore, the settled law ... that whatever the counsel, under the circumstances aforesaid, ... may say is binding on his client. Gehrke v. Jod, 59 ... Mo. 522; Field v. Matson, 8 Mo. 688; Miller v ... Bernecker, 46 Mo. 196; Walsh v. Railroad, 102 ... Mo. 588. (3) The concluding argument of the plaintiff's ... counsel heretofore set out, conclusively sustains this ... contention. We therefore insist that in a case where ... ...
-
Moffett v. Commerce Trust Co.
... ... Garesche, 227 ... S.W. 824; State ex rel. v. Miller, 266 S.W. 985; ... Rule 29, Circuit Court; Roberts v. Land Improvement ... Co., 126 Mo. 460; Konta v. Stock Exchange, 150 ... Mo.App. l.c. 620; Fears v. Riley, 148 Mo. 49, 49 ... S.W. 836; Biebinger v. Taylor, 64 Mo. 63; Gehrke ... v. Jod, 59 Mo. 522; Ketcham v. Harlow, 84 Mo ... 225; Moffett v. Robbins, 81 F.2d 431. (11) In ... connection with the arguments of appellants under their ... Points XIV and XXI, no facts are alleged in the petition ... showing obstruction of justice as to the appellants, in the ... ...
-
Tucker v. St. Louis Life Ins. Co.
...Campbell vs. Gaston, 29 Mo. 343; Palmer vs. Russell, 34 Mo. 476; Lamb vs. Nelson, 34 Mo. 501; Bosbyshell vs. Summers, 40 Mo. 172; Gehrke vs. Jod, 59 Mo. 522; Castlio vs. Bishop, 51 Mo. 162; Hunt vs. Wallace, 6 Paige Ch. 371; Wells vs. Cruger, 5 Paige, 164; Hunter vs. Lester, 10 Abb. Prac. [......
-
R---, In Interest of, 8015
...S.W.2d 923; State v. Robbins, Mo., 269 S.W.2d 27.5 Field & Cathcart v. Matson, 8 Mo. 686; Kerby & Potter v. Chadwell, 10 Mo. 392; Gehrke v. Jod. 59 Mo. 522; Biebinger v. Taylor, 64 Mo. 63, 66(1); Fretwell v. Laffoon, 77 Mo. 26, 32-33(4); Parker v. Britton, 133 Mo.App. 270, 113 S.W. 259; Cru......